Jesus will deliver His kingdom to the Father when He returns and not 1,000+ years later

[Zao is life]

I have already explained my view. If you don't understand what I've said, then I can't help that.

Instead of just asking endless questions, how about you tell me your understanding of these passages...

Colossians 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

I understand it as going with all this below, which all use the same word [katargeo], which is again used in 1 Corinthians 15:23:

2 Corinthians 3:7-8, 11 & 14:
But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away [katargeo]: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

For if that which is done away [katargeo] was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away [katargeo] in Christ.

We have had the vail removed and placed in the Kingdom of Christ, which Christ told us is not now of this world, but we know is in the world - because by His Holy Spirit, His Kingdom is in us.

Matthew 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

I hope you realize that you have provided proof above for the fact that - as Hebrews 2:8 tells us - though all things have already been placed under Christ's feet, yet now we see not yet all things placed under Him.

This is how I understand Matthew 13:40:

1 Corinthians 15:23:
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down [katargeo] all rule and all authority and power.

Note: He has not yet put it down and this is why we see not yet all things placed under Him.

2 Thessalonians 2:8:
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy [katargeo] with the brightness of his coming.

Why is the kingdom called "the kingdom of his dear Son" in Colossians 1:13 in relation to the current time and "the kingdom of their Father" at the end of the age?

Because He has not yet put down the kingdoms of this world - they have not yet become the kingdoms of our LORD and of His Christ and He has not yet began to reign as the sole King, from then on till the ages of the ages, i.e the first thousand years of the ages of the ages which follows the return of Christ - when the above comes to pass - has not begun yet.

Jesus will subdue [katargeo] the kingdoms of this world when He returns, and then He will hand back all the authority the Father has placed in His hands, back to the Father, and the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our LORD and of His Christ, and He (God) shall reign till the ages of the ages.

Can you explain who you believe "they" are in Revelation 22:5:

"And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign to the ages of the ages"?

As I said, my understanding is that it's the same kingdom (read that again 1000 times), but it takes on a different form when Jesus comes in the future in the sense that the entire heavens and earth will be made new with wickedness being removed from them and the Father and Son will reign together with the Son subject to the Father for eternity in "the new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells" (2 Peter 3:13). Right now, the kingdom shares space with Satan's kingdom, as Jesus taught in the parable of the wheat and tares, but that will end when Jesus comes and rids the world of sin and death forever.

I know. And you know that I agree with you. But I have been challenging you because you're creating a false dichotomy in your OP between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God has come, and the Kingdom of God is coming. There's no dichotomy. Just different stages:

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Matthew 24:14.

The gospel of which Kingdom? The Kingdom of Christ that is already in the world but not of this time of this world, or the Kingdom of Christ to come, when He hands all rule and authority and power back to God after having destroyed the kingdoms of this world which are now the kingdoms of this world?

There is only one gospel of the Kingdom because there is only one Kingdom. Don't create a false dichotomy between "the Kingdom of Christ' and "the Kingdom of the Father".

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I understand it as going with all this below, which all use the same word [katargeo], which is again used in 1 Corinthians 15:23:

2 Corinthians 3:7-8, 11 & 14:
But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away [katargeo]: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

For if that which is done away [katargeo] was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away [katargeo] in Christ.

We have had the vail removed and placed in the Kingdom of Christ, which Christ told us is not now of this world, but we know is in the world - because by His Holy Spirit, His Kingdom is in us.



I hope you realize that you have provided proof above for the fact that - as Hebrews 2:8 tells us - though all things have already been placed under Christ's feet, yet now we see not yet all things placed under Him.

This is how I understand Matthew 13:40:

1 Corinthians 15:23:
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down [katargeo] all rule and all authority and power.

Note: He has not yet put it down and this is why we see not yet all things placed under Him.

2 Thessalonians 2:8:
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy [katargeo] with the brightness of his coming.



Because He has not yet put down the kingdoms of this world - they have not yet become the kingdoms of our LORD and of His Christ and He has not yet began to reign as the sole King, from then on till the ages of the ages, i.e the first thousand years of the ages of the ages which follows the return of Christ - when the above comes to pass - has not begun yet.

Jesus will subdue [katargeo] the kingdoms of this world when He returns, and then He will hand back all the authority the Father has placed in His hands, back to the Father, and the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our LORD and of His Christ, and He (God) shall reign till the ages of the ages.

Can you explain who you believe "they" are in Revelation 22:5:

"And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign to the ages of the ages"?



I know. And you know that I agree with you. But I have been challenging you because you're creating a false dichotomy in your OP between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God has come, and the Kingdom of God is coming. There's no dichotomy. Just different stages:

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Matthew 24:14.

The gospel of which Kingdom? The Kingdom of Christ that is already in the world but not of this time of this world, or the Kingdom of Christ to come, when He hands all rule and authority and power back to God after having destroyed the kingdoms of this world which are now the kingdoms of this world?

There is only one gospel of the Kingdom because there is only one Kingdom. Don't create a false dichotomy between "the Kingdom of Christ' and "the Kingdom of the Father".

You don't listen. I told you to read what I said 1000 times because I knew it wouldn't sink in otherwise. I said "my understanding is that it's the same kingdom", but here you are trying to say that I'm saying they are not the same kingdom. We both agree that the one kingdom will be a bit different in a sense after Jesus comes, but it's still the same kingdom. We just disagree on how exactly it will be different. Your thinking is more like Amils in some ways than Premils as you are the only Premil I know who would say that Jesus delivers the kingdom to the Father when He returns instead of 1,000+ years after He returns.

 

[Zao is life]

You know I'm an Amill, so how do you think I would answer that? They will be resurrected right after the ones mentioned there are resurrected. Jesus taught that the saved and unsaved will be resurrected at generally the same time (John 5:28-29).

You assume that He was saying it would be at generally the same time. 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:23 do not mention the others. Not does Revelation 20:4-6. So you have no other New Testament statements to go on in order to make it pass from being your assumption to something that is factual.

@Spiritual Israelite Here are the verses talking about the just and the unjust and their punishment:

11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. Revelation 22

14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. -- Acts 24

28 Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves shall hear His voice,
29 and shall come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have practiced evil to the resurrection of condemnation. -- John 5

11 And I saw a great white throne, and Him sitting on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And a place was not found for them.
12 And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God. And the books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.
15 And if anyone was not found having been written in the Book of Life, he was cast into the Lake of Fire. -- Revelation 20

Only at that point there is a separation going on.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You assume that He was saying it would be at generally the same time.

I can't even guess as to what else Jesus could have been saying in John 5:28-29. How exactly do you interpret this passage:

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Not does Revelation 20:4-6. So you have no other New Testament statements to go on in order to make it pass from being your assumption to something that is factual.

Except this one, you mean?

Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

Paul also referenced one resurrection event that will include both the just and unjust. He did not say "there shall be resurrections of the dead, both of the just and unjust." as if there will be two entirely separate resurrection events. He said "there shall be a resurrection of the dead". One resurrection event. And it will include both the just and unjust. Just like what Jesus indicated in John 5:28-29 and what Daniel indicates in Daniel 12:1-2 as well.

@Spiritual Israelite Here are the verses talking about the just and the unjust and their punishment:

11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. Revelation 22

14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. -- Acts 24

28 Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves shall hear His voice,
29 and shall come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have practiced evil to the resurrection of condemnation. -- John 5

11 And I saw a great white throne, and Him sitting on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And a place was not found for them.
12 And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God. And the books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.
15 And if anyone was not found having been written in the Book of Life, he was cast into the Lake of Fire. -- Revelation 20

Only at that point there is a separation going on.

I'm not sure what you're intending to say here. If the dead are not resurrected at generally the same time with some being resurrected to life and some to condemnation, then why are all people shown to be judged at the same time in passages like Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50 and Matthew 25:31-46?

 

[Zao is life]

I can't even guess as to what else Jesus could have been saying in John 5:28-29. How exactly do you interpret this passage:

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


Except this one, you mean?

Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

Paul also referenced one resurrection event that will include both the just and unjust. He did not say "there shall be resurrections of the dead, both of the just and unjust." as if there will be two entirely separate resurrection events. He said "there shall be a resurrection of the dead". One resurrection event. And it will include both the just and unjust. Just like what Jesus indicated in John 5:28-29 and what Daniel indicates in Daniel 12:1-2 as well.


I'm not sure what you're intending to say here. If the dead are not resurrected at generally the same time with some being resurrected to life and some to condemnation, then why are all people shown to be judged at the same time in passages like Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50 and Matthew 25:31-46?

Jesus does not even mention the resurrection in any of the verses you talk about, but as regards what IS being spoken about, what does a net remind you of with regard to the Kingdom of Christ? And what do the words "His Kingdom" remind you of? Who is Jesus talking about below? What is a servant?

Matthew 25
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
49 So shall it be at the end of the age: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

Here below specifically all nations are mentioned:

Matthew 25
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Matthew 13:41 says the Son of man shall send out His angels to gather out of His kingdom whatever offends.
Matthew 25:31 says the Son of man will be sitting upon His throne of glory and specifically all nations are mentioned, their works being examined.
The everlasting fire that is prepared for the devil does not yet contain the devil and his angels.

You jump to a lot of conclusions based on your assumptions, and then form a lot of eschatological doctrine based on the assumptions you've made about similitude examples that Jesus gives about what is going to happen when He returns, and in none of the passages you quote is Jesus even talking about the resurrection!

So I don't know why you're using them as examples of the resurrection, or why you're assuming they're talking about believers being resurrected to eternal life, and unbelievers to condemnation, at the time Christ returns. The everlasting fire that is prepared for the devil does not yet contain the devil and his angels and the verse does not say when the devil and his angels will be in it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus does not even mention the resurrection in any of the verses you talk about,

Why would the judgment of all people that He references in those verses not include anyone who was resurrected?

but as regards what IS being spoken about, what does a net remind you of with regard to the Kingdom of Christ? And what do the words "His Kingdom" remind you of? Who is Jesus talking about below? What is a servant?

Matthew 25
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
49 So shall it be at the end of the age: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

Here below specifically all nations are mentioned:

Matthew 25
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Matthew 13:41 says the Son of man shall send out His angels to gather out of His kingdom whatever offends.
Matthew 25:31 says the Son of man will be sitting upon His throne of glory and specifically all nations are mentioned, their works being examined.
The everlasting fire that is prepared for the devil does not yet contain the devil and his angels.

You jump to a lot of conclusions based on your assumptions, and then form a lot of eschatological doctrine based on the assumptions you've made about similitude examples that Jesus gives about what is going to happen when He returns, and in none of the passages you quote is Jesus even talking about the resurrection!

So I don't know why you're using them as examples of the resurrection, or why you're assuming they're talking about believers being resurrected to eternal life, and unbelievers to condemnation, at the time Christ returns. The everlasting fire that is prepared for the devil does not yet contain the devil and his angels and the verse does not say when the devil and his angels will be in it.

You use so many words to say nothing. Who are the ones being judged if none of them were resurrected? You're so vague about everything. Do you have something against being specific? How do you interpret those passages? All you can do is say that I'm making assumptions while you do nothing to specify what you think the passages are about.

 

[Zao is life]

Why would the judgment of all people that He references in those verses not include anyone who was resurrected?


You use so many words to say nothing. Who are the ones being judged if none of them were resurrected? You're so vague about everything. Do you have something against being specific? How do you interpret those passages? All you can do is say that I'm making assumptions while you do nothing to specify what you think the passages are about.

The passages you quoted as though they are speaking about the resurrection of the dead are about what they are speaking about, not about what they are not speaking about, and they are not speaking about the resurrection of anyone.

Besides this, you seem to have assumed that Jesus was speaking about what will happen when He sits on the throne of His glory and all nations are gathered before Him in all of the verses you quoted.

You seem to be confused between the above and what He is saying about what will happen to the bad fish gathered into the net with the good fish, the unprofitable servant, and whatever is now in His Kingdom that offends being taken out of His Kingdom:

1 Corinthians 6
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

IMO the OSAS brigade needs to understand that Jesus is not going to take with Him into His millennial Kingdom whatever is now in His Kingdom that offends - regardless of anyone's church theology - It's going to be gathered out of His Kingdom.

In the scriptures you brought up, Jesus is using the same examples from nature and similitude that He always used at other times when He wasn't speaking about the resurrection, such as in the parable about the seed falling among stones and the seed that fell on good ground, etc.

He's only speaking in all the example scriptures you quoted about how His coming at the end of the age will separate one group from another

- but you have pushed the resurrection of the dead into those examples He gave, though they are saying NOTHING about the resurrection of the dead - not even whether the saints will be resurrected first and unbelievers immediately afterward or vice versa, or whether unbelievers will be resurrected many "moons" later.

When Jesus does speak about raising the dead at the last day He says nothing about unbelievers being raised at that time:

"And this is the will of Him who sent me, that everyone who beholds the Son, and is believing in him, may have everlasting life [aionios zoe]; and I will [ἀνίστημι anístēmi] raise him up in the last day." (John 6:39, 40 & 44).

Paul also, in 1 Corinthians 15:23 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 says NOTHING about the resurrection of unbelievers at the time of the return of Christ

But in your posts to me about this you've guessed the resurrection and the way it will work into scriptures that are only speaking about how one group is going to be separated from another when Christ returns, and the fact that whatever offends will not be retained in His Kingdom.

I'm not speaking "vaguely" as you say just because unlike you I'm saying nothing more and adding nothing to the scriptures you quoted where what you say about it and the fact that you quoted them means you are implying that the scriptures you quoted are talking about the resurrection of unbelievers or the unjust or the unrighteous etc.

But that's what you've guessed into the scriptures you quoted. All Jesus was saying was that He will send out His angels and they (the angels) will gather out of His Kingdom all that offends.

All nations will be gathered before Him when He sits on the throne of His glory. Not referring to the same group as the others.

@Spiritual Israelite He was not giving that bit of information to you or anyone else to be able to set it as a timer for the resurrection. Logically it will happen before the resurrection of the saints, because whatever was taken out of His Kingdom will not be resurrected with the saints.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The passages you quoted as though they are speaking about the resurrection of the dead are about what they are speaking about, not about what they are not speaking about, and they are not speaking about the resurrection of anyone.

LOL. You speak in riddles. The passages I talked about talk about people either inheriting eternal life or being condemned and cast into the fire. Why would the resurrected dead who are either resurrected to eternal life or to condemnation be included in that?

Besides this, you seem to have assumed that Jesus was speaking about what will happen when He sits on the throne of His glory and all nations are gathered before Him in all of the verses you quoted.

So, instead of saying all this, why don't you share how you understand them? You instead just want to claim I'm wrong without showing how and not bothering to show how you interpret them? But, maybe you did that in the rest of your post. We'll see. I'm just responding as I go along.

You seem to be confused between the above and what He is saying about what will happen to the bad fish gathered into the net with the good fish, the unprofitable servant, and whatever is now in His Kingdom that offends being taken out of His Kingdom:

1 Corinthians 6
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

IMO the OSAS brigade needs to understand that Jesus is not going to take with Him into His millennial Kingdom whatever is now in His Kingdom that offends - regardless of anyone's church theology - It's going to be gathered out of His Kingdom.

LOL. I don't believe in OSAS. You seem to be making another strawman argument here. And you once again are not being clear in what you're intending to say. What in the world are you even saying here?

In the scriptures you brought up, Jesus is using the same examples from nature and similitude that He always used at other times when He wasn't speaking about the resurrection, such as in the parable about the seed falling among stones and the seed that fell on good ground, etc.

He's only speaking in all the example scriptures you quoted about how His coming at the end of the age will separate one group from another

Yes, one group are those who are in the kingdom of God and the other are in the kingdom of the wicked one. Why can't they include those who have been resurrected being separated for the judgment like we see described in Matthew 25:31-46?

- but you have pushed the resurrection of the dead into those examples He gave, though they are saying NOTHING about the resurrection of the dead - not even whether the saints will be resurrected first and unbelievers immediately afterward or vice versa, or whether unbelievers will be resurrected many "moons" later.

Why does it have to explicitly say that it includes those who have been resurrected, knowing that the dead are separated into two groups and judged separately as well? Why can't the groups who are separated at the end of the age and judged separately include those who have been resurrected?

When Jesus does speak about raising the dead at the last day He says nothing about unbelievers being raised at that time:

"And this is the will of Him who sent me, that everyone who beholds the Son, and is believing in him, may have everlasting life [aionios zoe]; and I will [ἀνίστημι anístēmi] raise him up in the last day." (John 6:39, 40 & 44).

Paul also, in 1 Corinthians 15:23 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 says NOTHING about the resurrection of unbelievers at the time of the return of Christ

So what? Sometimes they focused only on believers and about being resurrected unto the eternal life that only believers will receive. That proves nothing. In John 5:28-29 Jesus indicated that unbelievers would be resurrected at the same time as believers, so should we just ignore that? Of course not.

But in your posts to me about this you've guessed the resurrection and the way it will work into scriptures that are only speaking about how one group is going to be separated from another when Christ returns, and the fact that whatever offends will not be retained in His Kingdom.

I'm not speaking "vaguely" as you say just because unlike you I'm saying nothing more and adding nothing to the scriptures you quoted where what you say about it and the fact that you quoted them means you are implying that the scriptures you quoted are talking about the resurrection of unbelievers or the unjust or the unrighteous etc.

But that's what you've guessed into the scriptures you quoted.

You are doing absolutely nothing to refute my belief. To say that those scriptures that talk about judgment can't include those who have been resurrected is an argument from silence. It's not as if they have to be specifically mentioned in order to be included in the judgment since we know that the dead, saved and lost, will all be judged, according to Daniel 12:1-2, Acts 24:15 and John 5:28-29.

 

[Zao is life]

So what? Sometimes they focused only on believers and about being resurrected unto the eternal life that only believers will receive.

LOL. Your "So what?" proves that you insert into texts things that are not said in the text whenever it suits you, and whatever suits you

- as you have done once again in your reply. It suits you to read a resurrection of the just and the unjust, believers and unbelievers into references to the resurrection at the last day though Jesus only says He will raise those who belong to Him at the last day, whom Paul also says will be resurrected when Christ returns.

And it suits you to read the resurrection into scriptures that are not even referring to the resurrection OR the timing of it OR whether or not the resurrection of the just and the unjust will take place around the same time.

Your "So what? is typical of people who choose to believe whatever they want to believe and insert into scripture whatever they want to insert into scripture, wherever they want to insert it (as you are doing), and then responding with "So what?" when it is pointed out.

That proves nothing. In John 5:28-29 Jesus indicated that unbelievers would be resurrected at the same time as believers, so should we just ignore that? Of course not.

What you say proves nothing because again, because you have read what you say "Jesus indicates" into the text and inserted it into the text (whenever you quote that text) - and it's become clear that you do so only because your faith in the Amil false theology and its false doctrines causes your (fallible) human mind to do that.

Just how foolish your "So what?" is is evident by the fact that Jesus did not indicate that the resurrection of unbelievers and believers would occur "at the same time" in the above verses - whether

1. on the same day, or whether
2.around the same time, or whether
3. a few days apart, or whether
4. at the close of the millennium - a thousand years after His return, when death and hades deliver up the dead in them.

More proof of just how baseless your above argument is lies in the fact that Premils can just as well say that Jesus was indicating in those verses that death and hades delivering up the dead in them will occur a thousand years following the resurrection of the saints who died in Christ - because in His later Revelation, this is indeed what He revealed. But then those who do so would prove it no more than you prove it

- because unless Jesus actually said in the texts you brought up that it will occur at the time of His return OR unless He actually said in the text that it will occur at the close of a thousand years following His return when death & hades deliver up the dead in them, the one who asserts either time will be inserting his own doctrine into the text (as you are doing).

And because your reading and inserting into the text what you assert above is your Amil doctrinal bias causing you to read and insert it into the text, it's plain to the many of us (those who can clearly see the many holes in your Amil doctrinal bias), that you are reading it into and inserting it into the text.

What you say proves nothing because it's produced time and time again only by your Amil false theology, and is not an accurate reflection of what was said. You have to insert that interpretation into the text in order to change what is written and what it means in such a way as to make it comply with Amillennialism. You always show how you place the 'authority' of Amillennial theology above the authority of the actual scriptures.

You are doing absolutely nothing to refute my belief.

LOL. I don't even have to refute it. Your argument is self-refuting because you are doing absolutely nothing to prove your belief. And you are so blinded by it that you cannot even see that you are doing absolutely nothing to prove your belief.

These childish "you have proved nothing but I have proved .." Olympics you and other Amils here are so good at engaging in - you never, ever win any medal in those self-made Olympics of yours. Instead you always come last (except in your own fallible human imaginations)

They're totally futile assertions. And a waste of time. Maybe you have them on a clipboard?

To say that those scriptures that about judgment can't include those who have been resurrected is an argument from silence.

That's not true at all. Your argument once again just makes it obvious that your faith in Amil theology and eschatology is the reason why you believe you should insert - into the texts we were discussing that are saying noting about the resurrection - a reference to the resurrection;

and into John 5:28-29 a reference to death and hades delivering up the dead in them (apparently when Jesus returns), and this is also the reason why you believe that the fact that there is silence about it the timing for it in the text cannot be an argument.

You have done nothing to prove your belief so you begin engaging in "you have not proved, I have proved, you cannot refute, I have refuted" Olympics that you and the other Amils here are so good at engaging in (and always losing).

It's not as if they have to be specifically mentioned in order to be included in the judgment since we know that the dead, saved and lost, will all be judged, according to Daniel 12:1-2, Acts 24:15 and John 5:28-29.

Round and round we go.

* Daniel 12:1-2 says that some will be raised to everlasting life and some to everlasting contempt.
* Paul says the unrighteous and sexually immoral will not inherit the Kingdom of God - and he's warning the church, not even speaking to unbelievers.
* Jesus says He will send out His angels and they will gather out of His Kingdom whatever offends.
* In Matthew 24:29-31 Jesus is sending out His angels to gather His elect. No mention of unbelievers.
* Paul speaks only about the resurrection of the saints in 1 Cor 15:23 and 1 Thess 4:15-17 and Jesus mentions only the resurrection of those who belong to Him in John 6:39, 40 & 44.
* Acts 24:15 and John 5:28-29 are not giving any timing for the time death and hades will deliver up the dead in them.

etc etc

Yet you assert that it's okay for you read into texts and insert into texts whatever you believe "should be" in the texts - and then say that the fact that there is silence in those very texts about the very things that you inserted into them "is not an argument" though your argument about it not being an argument proves that you keep inserting things and meanings into scripture that scripture does not contain, in order to get scripture to comply with Amil doctrine.

But it's okay. We understand. Your arguments are produced by your Amil theology having programmed your mind to interpret the scriptures in that way.

 

[WPM]

LOL. Your "So what?" proves that you insert into texts things that are not said in the text whenever it suits you, and whatever suits you

- as you have done once again in your reply. It suits you to read a resurrection of the just and the unjust, believers and unbelievers into references to the resurrection at the last day though Jesus only says He will raise those who belong to Him at the last day, whom Paul also says will be resurrected when Christ returns.

And it suits you to read the resurrection into scriptures that are not even referring to the resurrection OR the timing of it OR whether or not the resurrection of the just and the unjust will take place around the same time.

Your "So what? is typical of people who choose to believe whatever they want to believe and insert into scripture whatever they want to insert into scripture, wherever they want to insert it (as you are doing), and then responding with "So what?" when it is pointed out.



What you say proves nothing because again, because you have read what you say "Jesus indicates" into the text and inserted it into the text (whenever you quote that text) - and it's become clear that you do so only because your faith in the Amil false theology and its false doctrines causes your (fallible) human mind to do that.

Just how foolish your "So what?" is is evident by the fact that Jesus did not indicate that the resurrection of unbelievers and believers would occur "at the same time" in the above verses - whether

1. on the same day, or whether
2.around the same time, or whether
3. a few days apart, or whether
4. at the close of the millennium - a thousand years after His return, when death and hades deliver up the dead in them.

More proof of just how baseless your above argument is lies in the fact that Premils can just as well say that Jesus was indicating in those verses that death and hades delivering up the dead in them will occur a thousand years following the resurrection of the saints who died in Christ - because in His later Revelation, this is indeed what He revealed. But then those who do so would prove it no more than you prove it

- because unless Jesus actually said in the texts you brought up that it will occur at the time of His return OR unless He actually said in the text that it will occur at the close of a thousand years following His return when death & hades deliver up the dead in them, the one who asserts either time will be inserting his own doctrine into the text (as you are doing).

And because your reading and inserting into the text what you assert above is your Amil doctrinal bias causing you to read and insert it into the text, it's plain to the many of us (those who can clearly see the many holes in your Amil doctrinal bias), that you are reading it into and inserting it into the text.

What you say proves nothing because it's produced time and time again only by your Amil false theology, and is not an accurate reflection of what was said. You have to insert that interpretation into the text in order to change what is written and what it means in such a way as to make it comply with Amillennialism. You always show how you place the 'authority' of Amillennial theology above the authority of the actual scriptures.



LOL. I don't even have to refute it. Your argument is self-refuting because you are doing absolutely nothing to prove your belief. And you are so blinded by it that you cannot even see that you are doing absolutely nothing to prove your belief.

These childish "you have proved nothing but I have proved .." Olympics you and other Amils here are so good at engaging in - you never, ever win any medal in those self-made Olympics of yours. Instead you always come last (except in your own fallible human imaginations)

They're totally futile assertions. And a waste of time. Maybe you have them on a clipboard?



That's not true at all. Your argument once again just makes it obvious that your faith in Amil theology and eschatology is the reason why you believe you should insert - into the texts we were discussing that are saying noting about the resurrection - a reference to the resurrection;

and into John 5:28-29 a reference to death and hades delivering up the dead in them (apparently when Jesus returns), and this is also the reason why you believe that the fact that there is silence about it the timing for it in the text cannot be an argument.

You have done nothing to prove your belief so you begin engaging in "you have not proved, I have proved, you cannot refute, I have refuted" Olympics that you and the other Amils here are so good at engaging in (and always losing).



Round and round we go.

* Daniel 12:1-2 says that some will be raised to everlasting life and some to everlasting contempt.
* Paul says the unrighteous and sexually immoral will not inherit the Kingdom of God - and he's warning the church, not even speaking to unbelievers.
* Jesus says He will send out His angels and they will gather out of His Kingdom whatever offends.
* In Matthew 24:29-31 Jesus is sending out His angels to gather His elect. No mention of unbelievers.
* Paul speaks only about the resurrection of the saints in 1 Cor 15:23 and 1 Thess 4:15-17 and Jesus mentions only the resurrection of those who belong to Him in John 6:39, 40 & 44.
* Acts 24:15 and John 5:28-29 are not giving any timing for the time death and hades will deliver up the dead in them.

etc etc

Yet you assert that it's okay for you read into texts and insert into texts whatever you believe "should be" in the texts - and then say that the fact that there is silence in those very texts about the very things that you inserted into them "is not an argument" though your argument about it not being an argument proves that you keep inserting things and meanings into scripture that scripture does not contain, in order to get scripture to comply with Amil doctrine.

But it's okay. We understand. Your arguments are produced by your Amil theology having programmed your mind to interpret the scriptures in that way.

You have 1 string to your guitar, and it is broken.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What you say proves nothing

And what you say proves nothing. So, let's stop wasting time proving nothing to each other.

 

[WPM]

LOL. Your "So what?" proves that you insert into texts things that are not said in the text whenever it suits you, and whatever suits you

- as you have done once again in your reply. It suits you to read a resurrection of the just and the unjust, believers and unbelievers into references to the resurrection at the last day though Jesus only says He will raise those who belong to Him at the last day, whom Paul also says will be resurrected when Christ returns.

And it suits you to read the resurrection into scriptures that are not even referring to the resurrection OR the timing of it OR whether or not the resurrection of the just and the unjust will take place around the same time.

Your "So what? is typical of people who choose to believe whatever they want to believe and insert into scripture whatever they want to insert into scripture, wherever they want to insert it (as you are doing), and then responding with "So what?" when it is pointed out.



What you say proves nothing because again, because you have read what you say "Jesus indicates" into the text and inserted it into the text (whenever you quote that text) - and it's become clear that you do so only because your faith in the Amil false theology and its false doctrines causes your (fallible) human mind to do that.

Just how foolish your "So what?" is is evident by the fact that Jesus did not indicate that the resurrection of unbelievers and believers would occur "at the same time" in the above verses - whether

1. on the same day, or whether
2.around the same time, or whether
3. a few days apart, or whether
4. at the close of the millennium - a thousand years after His return, when death and hades deliver up the dead in them.

More proof of just how baseless your above argument is lies in the fact that Premils can just as well say that Jesus was indicating in those verses that death and hades delivering up the dead in them will occur a thousand years following the resurrection of the saints who died in Christ - because in His later Revelation, this is indeed what He revealed. But then those who do so would prove it no more than you prove it

- because unless Jesus actually said in the texts you brought up that it will occur at the time of His return OR unless He actually said in the text that it will occur at the close of a thousand years following His return when death & hades deliver up the dead in them, the one who asserts either time will be inserting his own doctrine into the text (as you are doing).

And because your reading and inserting into the text what you assert above is your Amil doctrinal bias causing you to read and insert it into the text, it's plain to the many of us (those who can clearly see the many holes in your Amil doctrinal bias), that you are reading it into and inserting it into the text.

What you say proves nothing because it's produced time and time again only by your Amil false theology, and is not an accurate reflection of what was said. You have to insert that interpretation into the text in order to change what is written and what it means in such a way as to make it comply with Amillennialism. You always show how you place the 'authority' of Amillennial theology above the authority of the actual scriptures.



LOL. I don't even have to refute it. Your argument is self-refuting because you are doing absolutely nothing to prove your belief. And you are so blinded by it that you cannot even see that you are doing absolutely nothing to prove your belief.

These childish "you have proved nothing but I have proved .." Olympics you and other Amils here are so good at engaging in - you never, ever win any medal in those self-made Olympics of yours. Instead you always come last (except in your own fallible human imaginations)

They're totally futile assertions. And a waste of time. Maybe you have them on a clipboard?



That's not true at all. Your argument once again just makes it obvious that your faith in Amil theology and eschatology is the reason why you believe you should insert - into the texts we were discussing that are saying noting about the resurrection - a reference to the resurrection;

and into John 5:28-29 a reference to death and hades delivering up the dead in them (apparently when Jesus returns), and this is also the reason why you believe that the fact that there is silence about it the timing for it in the text cannot be an argument.

You have done nothing to prove your belief so you begin engaging in "you have not proved, I have proved, you cannot refute, I have refuted" Olympics that you and the other Amils here are so good at engaging in (and always losing).



Round and round we go.

* Daniel 12:1-2 says that some will be raised to everlasting life and some to everlasting contempt.
* Paul says the unrighteous and sexually immoral will not inherit the Kingdom of God - and he's warning the church, not even speaking to unbelievers.
* Jesus says He will send out His angels and they will gather out of His Kingdom whatever offends.
* In Matthew 24:29-31 Jesus is sending out His angels to gather His elect. No mention of unbelievers.
* Paul speaks only about the resurrection of the saints in 1 Cor 15:23 and 1 Thess 4:15-17 and Jesus mentions only the resurrection of those who belong to Him in John 6:39, 40 & 44.
* Acts 24:15 and John 5:28-29 are not giving any timing for the time death and hades will deliver up the dead in them.

etc etc

Yet you assert that it's okay for you read into texts and insert into texts whatever you believe "should be" in the texts - and then say that the fact that there is silence in those very texts about the very things that you inserted into them "is not an argument" though your argument about it not being an argument proves that you keep inserting things and meanings into scripture that scripture does not contain, in order to get scripture to comply with Amil doctrine.

But it's okay. We understand. Your arguments are produced by your Amil theology having programmed your mind to interpret the scriptures in that way.

All you have is avoidance, misrepresentings and name-calling. That has become the Premil MO over the years. That is because they have no answer to Amil.

The battle has been convincingly won.

 

[Zao is life]

And what you say proves nothing. So, let's stop wasting time proving nothing to each other.

Sure